NightmareB

June 27, 2010 at 6:32am

Ok Drew, first of all there is some things you need to know about processors.

First of all:

I don't want to label you retarded as clearly you are not, just misinformed/uneducated.

 

Here is why a lower clock CPU is better then yours:

On the left, will be your cpu, on the right, will be the i5 540M ULV

  You M11x i5

Nm Process: 90nm 32nm (for those of you playing at home, 58nm difference, HUGE)

Architecture: Toledo E6 Arrandale (4)

Cache: 2x1MB L2 256KB (instructional) L2 + 3MB L3 (shared)

TDP: 110W 18W

Native Clock: 2200mhz 1300mhz (Native) + Up to 2260mhz (With Turbo Boost)

Ok, now I'm not rubbing this in your face or trying to show you up, I'm just teaching you how to tell for future references :)

 

How all the above numbers make a difference is like this:

The NM Process:

Electricity likes to take the shortest route, and something 90nm, is bigger then 32nm, so the voltage that occupies the space at any one time is larger, so therefore there is more of it to move around, which takes longer, 32nm however, is a MUCH tighter space, so less electricity can occupy it at any one time, but moves a whole world of alot faster, therefore the performance increase.

 

Architecture:

The difference there is mainly that the Toledo E6, is 4 years older then the Arrandale, so naturally there is going to be some constructive differences there, I'm not going to go into detail, but in that time, they have managed to redesign processors to be more efficient (mostly where NM is concerned)

 

Cache:

The difference there, is that when the Toledo was manufactured, L3 Cache didnt exist, nor was L2 cache properly designed to be as efficient as it is now.

So even though the Arrandale has less L2, it is used almost perfectly, where as the L2 in the toledo, is all over the place and not used very efficiently at all, resulting in a performance difference there.

 

TDP:

TDP isnt as important in this equation, but I thought I would throw it in there anyways, as you can see, 110 and 18, is a massive difference, almost titanic in the pc world.

But it goes to show that even though it uses way less power, it is used way more efficiently, and that comes down to the NM process, and General architecture of the processor.

 

Native Clock:

Now this is the only number you were initially concerned about, while your native clock is indeed higher by a large margin, it is still important, but only when comparing a like design model. The i5, even though its native clock is far lower, and even with turbo boost active and being used at max, it still only just breathes past yours, it is quicker because of the earlier mentions of NM process and architecture combined with the cache's.

So when comparing to the i5, your clock speed is not as important initially, until further details are uncovered to answer wether or not it is even worth comparing at all due to design and age.

 

So Drew, I hope this post is helpful, and I do apologise if at all I have made you sound stupid, it wasn't my intention, though the post in general would suggest it, I just want you to be educated before you go and say something like my processor is better or faster then this one yardy yardy yah.

It always pays to be educated in an argument, one: to heighten your chances of making the other person look like a fool, and two: with the right information, maybe educate, or inform someone else correctly if they may of been misinformed in the first place.

 

Regards,

Tim 

 

JediBeavis1971

June 16, 2010 at 3:57pm

So it's a great gaming notebook? With NO optical drive? Most PC games require the disc be inserted to play the game. Doesn't that defeat the whole thing?

Drew7

June 12, 2010 at 9:59am

Yeah, yeah, yeah... So my processor is older, and this Intel one is newer. Blah, blah, blah. Mine is still fater by 700Mhz, AND it has 1MB cache per core. I seriously doubt this Intel "laptop" chip is more powerful than my desktop Athlon 4400+. Now... How about answering the rest of my questions? Like being HONEST ENOUGH to just say, "Well, man, truth is... Your Athlon X2 4400+ is still fine for most games. It's the MARKET that's pushing people into believing it's not". Because that's true. When you start talking about threads... Just for gaming... Developers are reluctant to increase the thread count. It's just not cost-effective. I don't doubt that my 4400+ will be no good for gaming in another 2 years. I just wish the gaming community would fess up. I'm ALMOST willing to bet that even games that ask for a Minimum Requirement of a 4800+, or a 5000+, will play fine on my system, with a strong enough graphics card. How much of a bottleneck can a 939 Athlon 64 X2, with 2MB of cache, really be? Hell, I read that the 939 performed better than the AM2 and AM2+, in some tests. And in others... it tied. There aren't too many games making this thing sweat, yet. A FEW... But not enough. Pretty awesome for a 5 year old processor. GO AMD!!!!

FenixSS

June 09, 2010 at 10:52pm

I have a few of my fave Bluray Movies saved to my hard drive, if they are loaded onto this, will I be able to view them or is this processor and graphics card only good for DVD playback from the HDD?

Drew7

June 08, 2010 at 2:29pm

Ok. So... I've been told that my Athlon 64 X2 4400+ is no longer appropriate for gaming. Yet the M11x runs a dual core Intel chip that's about 700Mhz SLOWER than my desktop Athlon. That's #1. Number 2~ How... I repeat H-O-W can you test games on this thing, when it has no optical drive?! Or did the one you tested come with one? And for the model that doesn't... How is one supposed to game on it? And finally... All marketing and hype aside... Just "how defunct" is my 4400+ for gaming? Can't be too shabby, yet, judging by this review.

 

Tedster

June 07, 2010 at 6:25pm

Now getting core i3/4/7 and optimus :D

http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/07/alienware-m11x-gets-overseas-core-i3-i5-i7-and-nvidia-optimu/

 

 

 Ted

 

 

reutnes

June 07, 2010 at 3:24pm

If you're looking to buy this it can be had for under $700 with some clever coupon usage.  

 Link: http://slickdeals.net/permadeal/35060 

 

 

ajax344

June 07, 2010 at 1:02pm

don't think i've bought a game via  disk for like 5 months or somthing, all via steam, direct to drive, put disk on a flash drive, or like somebody said nobody would have a problem if you used a disk crack or just straght up downloaded the entire thing from a torrent after you buy it. (if you really can't use any of the above methods.

jlh304

June 07, 2010 at 10:05am

So what are people using to install games?  I guess an external drive, but what about games that check for the disc?  Kind of defeats the small form factor if I have to lug around an external drive.  So what's the best solution for this?

Graph

June 07, 2010 at 10:02am

I also have the Alienware M11x and it does NOT require a reboot to switch Graphics card. It requires a key combo on the keyboard and thats it. Switches instantly.

KarbonKopy

June 07, 2010 at 9:59am

"the M11x features the old-school method, requiring a manual switch and reboot to implemen"

I own one of these, and there is no reboot needed to swap graphics modes. You hit the function keyboard combo and it refreshes the screen. Please update the article.

zerokool

June 07, 2010 at 9:38am

"Whereas the N61J uses Nvidia’s new Optimus hybrid graphics, however, the M11x features the old-school method, requiring a manual switch and reboot to implement."

 

I have this and this statement is false unless you meant it differently? No reboot required... wow 

 

-ZEROKOOL